Outcomes of a novel bariatric stent in the management of sleeve gastrectomy leaks: a multicenter study

Managing Leaks and Fistulas After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Challenges and Solutions

Postoperative leaks after sleeve gastrectomy are a troublesome complication that occur in 0.7-5.3% of cases depending on the referenced source. These complications cause significant morbidity for patients requiring prolonged hospitalizations, nutritional support, intravenous antibiotics, and at times additional operations and procedures that risk further downstream complications. The patient presentation varies from relatively benign with minimal or no symptomatology, to the acutely ill with life-threatening sepsis. The management of gastric leak is dependent on a multitude of factors, including the initial presentation as well the surgeon's experience and preference. Here, we will summarize the current literature and discuss the different options that exist for the management of gastric leaks after sleeve gastrectomy including laparoscopic lavage, endoscopic stenting, endoscopic pigtail catheters, endoscopic vacuum therapy, and salvage surgical operations such as fistula jejunostomy and total gastrectomy. The aim is to provide a source for surgeons to reference when they encounter this disease pathology and to shed light on a daunting challenge for the modern bariatric surgeon.

A snapshot audit of global flexible endoscopy practice among European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) surgeons from the EAES Flexible Endoscopy Subcommittee survey

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopy is an essential skill for all surgeons. However, endoscopic competency, training, and practice may vary widely among them. The EAES Flexible Endoscopy Subcommittee is working towards a standardized set of fundamental endoscopic knowledge and skills. To best advise on current practice patterns of flexible endoscopy among surgeons worldwide, a snapshot audit was conducted on the training, use, and limitations of flexible endoscopy in practice.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed via email distribution and social media platforms for EAES, SAGES, and WebSurg members. Respondent demographics, training, and practice patterns were assessed. The main outcome measure was the annual endoscopic volume. Multivariate regression and machine learning models analyzed relationships between outcomes and independent variables of age, geographic region, laparoscopic surgery practice, and surgical specialization.

RESULTS

A total of 1486 surgeons from 195 countries completed the survey. Respondents were mainly general (n = 894/1486, 60.2%), colorectal (n = 189/1486, 12.7%), bariatric (n = 117/1486, 7.9%), upper gastrointestinal (GI)/foregut (n = 108, 7.3%), hepatobiliopancreatic/HPB (n = 59/1486, 4%), and endocrine surgeons (n = 11/1486, 0.7%) in active practice. Eighty-two percent (n = 1,204) mentioned having used endoscopy in their practice, and 64.7% (n = 961/1486) received formal flexible endoscopy training. Of those performing endoscopy annually, 64.2% (n = 660/1486) performed between 0 and 20 endoscopies, 15.2% (n = 156/1486) performed between 20 and 50 endoscopies, 10.1% (n = 104/1486) performed between 50 and 100 endoscopies, and 10.5% (n = 108/1486) performed over 100 endoscopies. From the regression analysis, there was no statistical correlation between the annual endoscopy volume and age, geographic region, laparoscopic surgery practice, or surgical specialization. Performing advanced endoscopy was directly related to the bariatric subspecialty and to performing over 50% of cases in a minimally invasive fashion.

CONCLUSIONS

This international snapshot audit revealed significant heterogeneity in endoscopic practices among surgeons worldwide. There was a nonindependent relationship between endoscopy volumes and other variables tested. Barriers to practicing and receiving endoscopy training were common among respondents. The EAES Flexible Endoscopy Subcommittee will consider such results when developing an equitable and effective standardized flexible endoscopy curriculum.

Endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal postsurgical leaks: a narrative review

Upper gastrointestinal postsurgical leaks are life-threatening conditions with high mortality rates and are one of the most feared complications of surgery. Leaks are challenging to manage and often require radiological, endoscopic, or surgical intervention. Steady advancements in interventional endoscopy in recent decades have allowed the development of new endoscopic devices and techniques that provide a more effective and minimally invasive therapeutic option compared to surgery. Since there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate therapeutic approach for managing postsurgical leaks, this review aimed to summarize the best available current data. Our discussion specifically focuses on leak diagnosis, treatment aims, comparative endoscopic technique outcomes, and combined multimodality approach efficacy.

Comparison of long-term quality of life outcomes between endoscopic vacuum therapy and other treatments for upper gastrointestinal leaks

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic vacuum assisted closure (EVAC) therapy is a validated treatment for gastrointestinal leaks, its impact on long-term quality of life (QoL) is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of successful EVAC management on long-term QoL outcomes.

METHODS

An institutional review board approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients undergoing treatment for gastrointestinal leaks between June 2012 and July 2022. The Short-Form 36 (SF-36) survey was used to assess QoL. Patients were contacted by telephone and sent the survey electronically. QoL outcomes between patients who underwent successful EVAC therapy and those who required conventional treatment (CT) were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients (17 EVAC; 27 CT) completed the survey and were included in our analysis. All included patients had foregut leaks with sleeve gastrectomy being the most common sentinel operation (n = 20). The mean time from the sentinel operation was 3.8 years and 4.8 years for the EVAC and CT groups, respectively. When evaluating long-term QoL, the EVAC group scored higher in all QoL domains when compared to the CT group with physical functioning (87.3 vs 69.3, p = 0.04), role limitations due to physical health (84.1 vs 45.7, p = 0.02), energy/fatigue (60.0 vs 40.9, p = 0.04), and social functioning (86.2 vs 64.1, p = 0.04) reaching statistical significance. Overall, patients who achieved organ preservation via successful EVAC therapy scored higher in all domains with role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.04) being statistically significant. In a multivariable regression analysis, increased age and a history of prior abdominal surgery at the time of the sentinel operation were patient characteristics that negatively impacted QoL outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients with gastrointestinal leaks successfully managed by EVAC therapy have better long-term QoL outcomes when compared to patients undergoing other treatments.

Choosing the best endoscopic approach for post-bariatric surgical leaks and fistulas: Basic principles and recommendations

Post-surgical leaks and fistulas are the most feared complication of bariatric surgery. They have become more common in clinical practice given the increasing number of these procedures and can be very difficult to treat. These two related conditions must be distinguished and characterized to guide the appropriate treatment. Leak is defined as a transmural defect with communication between the intra and extraluminal compartments, while fistula is defined as an abnormal communication between two epithelialized surfaces. Traditionally, surgical treatment was the preferred approach for leaks and fistulas and was associated with high morbidity with significant mortality rates. However, with the development of novel devices and techniques, endoscopic therapy plays an increasingly essential role in managing these conditions. Early diagnosis and endoscopic therapy initiation after clinical stabilization are crucial to success since clinical success rates are higher for acute leaks and fistulas when compared to late and chronic leaks and fistulas. Several endoscopic techniques are available with different mechanisms of action, including direct closure, covering/diverting or draining. The treatment should be individualized by considering the characteristics of both the patient and the defect. Although there is a lack of high-quality studies to provide standardized treatment algorithms, this narrative review aims to provide a summary of the current scientific evidence and, based on this data and our extensive experience, make recommendations to help choose the best endoscopic approach for the management of post-bariatric surgical leaks and fistulas.

Status of bariatric endoscopy-what does the surgeon need to know? A review

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a chronic and multifactorial disease with a variety of potential treatment options available. Currently, there are several multidisciplinary therapeutic options for its management, including conservative, endoscopic, and surgical treatment.

AIM

To clarify indications, technical aspects, and outcomes of bariatric endoscopy.

METHODS

Narrative review of current literature based on electronic databases including MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and SciELO.

RESULTS

Bariatric endoscopy is in constant development and comprises primary and revisional treatment options as well as management of surgical complications. Various devices act upon different mechanisms of action, which may be individualized to each patient. Despite favorable results for the endoscopic treatment of obesity, prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are required to fully validate primary and revisional endoscopic therapies. Regarding the management of bariatric surgery complications, endoscopic therapy may be considered the procedure of choice in a variety of situations. Still, as there is no standardized algorithm, local experience should be considered in decision-making.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of patients with obesity is complex, and a multidisciplinary approach is essential. Bariatric endoscopy has shown impressive results both in the treatment of obesity and its surgical complications, and therefore, must be part of the armamentarium in the fight against this disease.

Endoscopic Stent Placement Can Successfully Treat Gastric Leak Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy If and Only If an Esophagoduodenal Megastent Is Used

PURPOSE

Gastric staple line leakage (GL) is a serious complication of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), with a specific mortality ranging from 0.2 to 3.7%. The current treatment of choice is stent insertion. However, it is unclear whether the type of stent which is inserted affects treatment outcome. Therefore, we aimed not only to determine the effectiveness of stent treatment for GL but also to specifically clarify whether treatment outcome was dependent on the type of stent (small- (SS) or megastent (MS)) which was used.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-centre retrospective study of 23 consecutive patients was conducted to compare the outcomes of SS (n = 12) and MS (n = 11) for the treatment of GL following LSG. The primary outcome measure was the success rate of stenting, defined as complete healing of the GL without changing the treatment strategy. Treatment change or death were both coded as failure.

RESULTS

The success rate of MS was 91% (10/11) compared to only 50% (6/12) for SS (p = 0.006). An average of 2.3 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 3.7 endoscopies were required to achieve healing in the MS and SS groups respectively (p < 0.001). The average time to resumption of oral nutrition was shorter in the MS group (1.4 ± 1.1 days vs. 23.1 ± 33.1 days, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Stent therapy is only effective and safe for the treatment of GL after LSG if a MS is used. Treatment with a MS may not only increase treatment success rates but may also facilitate earlier resumption of oral nutrition and shorten the duration of hospitalization.

Cost-effective modified endoscopic vacuum therapy for the treatment of gastrointestinal transmural defects: step-by-step process of manufacturing and its advantages

Video 1Cost-effective modified endoscopic vacuum therapy for GI transmural defects. Step-by-step process of manufacturing and potential advantages.1.Cut half gauze to the ideal size to cover only the fenestrated portion of the nasogastric tube (NGT).2.Wrap the gauze around the fenestrated portion of the NGT. The assistance of another person is important in this process.3.Cut the antimicrobial incise drape to match the size of the fenestrated portion of the NGT. Note that the incise drape is a very strong adhesive; therefore, 3 people are usually required to assemble it properly.4.Next, the suture is used to fix the gauze and drape to the NGT. Perform fixation of the modified sponge in 3 places. The first knot is in the proximal portion, just below the last fenestra of the NGT, as a marker of where the vacuum system starts. The second knot is at the distal end, to avoid migration of the modified sponge. The third knot is in the middle of the modified sponge, which is essential to serve as a guide during endoscopic placement. For example, in cases of defects without collection in which the sponge will be placed in an intraluminal position, it is ideal to place the vacuum system in the middle of the defect; in cases of intracavitary placement, it will work as a guide to how much of the modified sponge will be inside the collection.5.Finally, use a needle to make innumerable punctures in the modified sponge system to obtain adequate aspiration. An 18G needle is recommended because, in addition to having an adequate diameter, it is very sharp, which facilitates perforation of the modified sponge system.6.After creation of the modified endoscopic vacuum therapy, the functionality test is performed. Turn on the wall suction system, connect the distal end of the NGT to the tube of the canister connected on the wall, and place the NGT inside a bowl with a liquid solution. The aspiration of a large amount of liquid indicates proper functioning of the modified endoscopic vacuum therapy system.7.The device is then ready to be positioned endoscopically in the patient. After proper positioning, connect the NGT to the suction tube to avoid migration of the device upon removal of the scope.8.In addition to the cost-effective device as described, in our practice we also use wall suction to reduce costs associated with the use of the vacuum machine.9.Use the antimicrobial incise drape to seal the connection between the NGT and the suction tube to avoid leakage within the connection.10.Last, owing to instability of the negative wall pressure, a 20F intravenous catheter is connected to the tube to maintain a negative pressure between -75 and -150 mmHg, as confirmed by laboratory studies performed by our group.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy in salvage and standalone treatment of gastric leaks after bariatric surgery

Introduction

Gastric leaks constitute some of the most severe complications after obesity surgery. Resulting peritonitis can lead to inflammatory changes of the stomach wall and might necessitate drainage. The inflammatory changes make gastric leak treatment difficult. A common endoscopic approach of using stents causes the problem of inadequate leak sealing and the need for an external drainage. Based on promising results using endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leaks, we implemented this concept for gastric leak treatment after bariatric surgery (Ahrens et al., Endoscopy 42(9):693–698, 2010; Schniewind et al., Surg Endosc 27(10):3883–3890, 2013).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data of 31 gastric leaks after bariatric surgery. For leak therapy management, we used revisional laparoscopy with suturing and drainage. EVT was added for persistent leaks in sixteen cases and was used in four cases as standalone therapy.

Results

Twenty-one gastric leaks occurred in 521 sleeve gastrectomies (leakage rate 4.0%), 9 in 441 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (leakage rate 2.3%), and 1 in 12 mini-bypasses. Eleven of these gastric leaks were detected within 2 days after bariatric surgery and successfully treated by revision surgery. Sixteen gastric leaks, re-operated later than 2 days, remained after revision surgery, and EVT was added. Without revision surgery, we performed EVT as standalone therapy in 4 patients with late gastric leaks. The EVT healing rate was 90% (18 of 20). In 2 patients with a late gastric leak in sleeve gastrectomy, neither revisional surgery, EVT, nor stent therapy was successful. EVT patients showed no complications related to EVT during follow-up.

Conclusion

EVT is highly beneficial in cases of gastric leaks in obesity surgery where local peritonitis is present. Revisional surgery was unsuccessful later than 2 days after primary surgery (16 of 16 cases). EVT shows a similar healing rate to stent therapy (80–100%) but a shorter duration of treatment. The advantages of EVT are endoscopic access, internal drainage, rapid granulation, and direct therapy control. In compartmentalized gastric leaks, EVT was successful as a standalone therapy without external drainage.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-021-02365-9.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Evaluation and Management of Early Complications After Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Endoscopic techniques are paramount in the identification and management of complications after surgery, though collaboration with other specialties is obligatory. Unfortunately, the evaluation and treatment algorithms are not standardized and there is a paucity of high-quality prospective studies to provide clarity regarding the best approach. The purpose of this clinical practice update is to apprise the clinician with respect to the endoscopic evaluation and management of patients with early (<90 days) complications after undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery.

METHODS

The best practice advice outlined in this expert review are based on available published evidence, including observational studies and systematic reviews, and incorporates expert opinion where applicable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians performing endoscopic approaches to treat early major postoperative complications should do so in a multidisciplinary manner with interventional radiology and bariatric/metabolic surgery co-managing the patient. Daily communication is advised. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians embarking on incorporating endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications into their clinical practice should have a comprehensive knowledge of the indications, contraindications, risks, benefits, and outcomes of each of the endoscopic treatment techniques. They should also have knowledge of the risks and benefits of alternative methods such as surgical and interventional radiological based approaches. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians incorporating endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications into their clinical practice should have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to: using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, managing stenosis, and managing percutaneous drains. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should screen all patients undergoing endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications and dietary intolerance for comorbid medical (nutrient deficiencies, infection, pulmonary embolism) and psychological (depression, anxiety) conditions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopic approaches to managing complications of bariatric/metabolic surgery may be considered for patients in the immediate, early and late postoperative periods depending on hemodynamic stability. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians incorporating endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications into their clinical practice should have a detailed understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms initiating and perpetuating conditions such as staple-line leaks. This will allow for a prompt diagnosis and appropriate therapy to be targeted not only at the area of interest, but also any concomitant downstream stenosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks are often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention.

A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Management of Sleeve Gastrectomy Leaks

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery leaks result in significant morbidity and mortality. Experts report variable therapeutic approaches, without uniform guidelines or consensus.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathogenesis, risk factors, prevention, and treatment of gastric sleeve leaks, with a focus on endoscopic approaches. In addition, the efficacy and success rates of different treatment modalities are assessed.

DESIGN

A comprehensive review was conducted using a thorough literature search of 5 online electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science) from the time of their inception through March 2020. Studies evaluating gastric sleeve leaks were included. MeSH terms related to "endoscopic," "leak," "sleeve," "gastrectomy," "anastomotic," and "bariatric" were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 2418 studies of which 438 were incorporated into the review. Shock and peritonitis necessitate early surgical intervention for leaks. Endoscopic therapies in acute and early leaks involve modalities with a focus on one of: (i) defect closure, (ii) wall diversion, or (iii) wall exclusion. Surgical revision is required if endoscopic therapies fail to control leaks after 6 months. Chronic leaks require one or more endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical approaches for fluid collection drainage to facilitate adequate healing. Success rates depend on provider and center expertise.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management of leaks post sleeve gastrectomy is a minimally invasive and effective alternative to surgery. Their effect may vary based on clinical presentation, timing or leak morphology, and should be tailored to the appropriate endoscopic modality of treatment.

Endoscopic Evaluation and Management of Late Complications After Bariatric Surgery: a Narrative Review

Despite ongoing evolution in technique and a low mortality rate, clinicians may care for patients who suffer late complications (> 90 days of surgery) after bariatric surgery. Endoscopic techniques are used to identify and manage many of the late complications of the two most commonly performed bariatric surgeries: sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Stenosis at the incisura angularis and gastroesophageal reflux disease may occur in patients who have undergone a sleeve gastrectomy. Patients who underwent a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass can suffer marginal ulceration, gastrojejunal anastomotic stricture, and gastro-gastric fistula. Clinicians may also encounter biliary pathologies such as choledocholithiasis, chronic abdominal pain, and weight regain. This narrative review provides an update on the endoscopic evaluation and management of patients with late complications after sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Management of Leaks Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Using Specifically Designed Large Covered Metal Stents

BACKGROUND

Leaks are the major complication associated with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of specifically designed large covered metal stents for the management of post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leaks.

METHODS

Prospectively collected databases from three Italian Endoscopy Units were reviewed. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate the clinical success of stents placement, defined as complete resolution of clinical and laboratory signs of sepsis with radiological evidence of leak closure. Secondary outcomes were stent-related adverse events and mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (67% females, mean age 45 years) were included in the study and a total of 26 stents were placed. Technical success of stent placement was achieved in all cases (100%). Clinical success was observed in 85.5% of patients. Stent-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients (43%), with stent migration as the most frequent complication (33%). Adverse events were more frequently observed in patients who had undergone bariatric surgery prior to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy compared to patients without previous surgery (83% et al. 27%, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

The placement of specifically designed covered metal stents appears to be an effective and safe therapeutic approach for post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leaks. Stent migration can be a frequent complication.

Outcome and Adverse Events of Endoscopic Bariatric Stents for Management of Leakage after Bariatric Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric leakage (BL) is a serious complication with a variety in available treatment options. Endoscopic stenting is preferred because of its minimally invasive nature in morbidly obese patients. Various modifications have been applied to stents since its use in palliation of malignant strictures. Few studies have exclusively evaluated the efficacy of bariatric stents in management BL.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients with BL managed by bariatric stents in the period between July 2014 and January 2019. The primary outcome was the clinical success in healing of leakage and secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), hospital stay and procedure-related mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were included in this study. Clinical success occurred in 33 patients (73.3%). There was no stent-related mortality. The most frequent stent-related complications were reflux (62.2%), intolerance (55.6%), and migration (17.8%). Severe AEs occurred in 9 patients (20%). The overall complications rate was higher in diabetic patients (P = 0.048). Intolerance was significantly associated with shorter interval to management (P = 0.02). Stent migration was higher in male patients (P = 0.019) and higher BMI (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic stenting is a double-edged weapon that must be handled cautiously. It is a highly effective therapy, and early intervention is the main determinant of its efficacy. But it is not a treatment without complications (80%). The variant and high prevalence of complications mandates a strict follow-up throughout the stenting duration.

Customized bariatric stents for sleeve gastrectomy leak: are they superior to conventional esophageal stents? A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recently, there has been a burgeoning interest in the utilization of customized bariatric stents (CBS) for management of sleeve gastrectomy leak (SGL). We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these new stents and to compare them with the conventional esophageal stents (CES).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases was conducted through May 1, 2020. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success and post-procedure adverse events of CBS and CES. Secondary outcomes were number of stents and endoscopic sessions per patient, and time to leak closure. A proportion meta-analysis was performed on outcomes using a random-effects model, and the weighted pooled rates (WPRs) or mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

The WPR with 95% CI of technical success, clinical success, and stent migration for CBS were 99% (93-100%) I2 = 34%, 82% (69-93%) I2 = 58%, and 32% (17-49%), I2 = 69%, respectively. For CES, the WPR (95% CI) for technical success, clinical success, and stent migration were 100% (97-100%) I2 = 19%, 93% (85-98%) I2 = 30%, and 15% (7-25%), I2 = 41%, respectively. Adverse events other than migration were very low with both types of stents. On proportionate difference, CBS had lower clinical success (11%) and higher migration rate (17%) in comparison to CES. In successfully treated patients, CBS was associated with lower mean number of stents and endoscopic sessions, and shorter time to leak closure compared to CES. The overall quality of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In treatment of SGL, there is very low level evidence that CES are superior to CBS in terms of clinical success and migration rate, though may require more stent insertions and endoscopic procedures. The evidence however remains very uncertain. Perhaps relevant to some types of stents, CBS are promising; however design modification is strongly recommended to improve outcomes.

Endobariatric procedures for obesity: clinical indications and available options

Obesity remains a growing public health epidemic that has increased healthcare costs and related comorbidities. Current treatment guidelines encourage a multidisciplinary approach starting from patient selection, interventions, and long-term follow-up to maintain weight loss. However, these conservative interventions are largely ineffective at reducing body weight due to low adherence to the treatment regimen. Recently, endoscopic bariatric therapies have become an attractive alternative to traditional invasive bariatric surgeries due to their improved efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Endoscopic bariatric therapies include intragastric balloon placement, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, gastric bypass revision, and aspiration therapy. These procedures fall into two separate categories depending on the primary mechanism involved: restrictive or malabsorptive. Restrictive methods, such as the Orbera® and ReShape™ intragastric balloons, increase satiation and delay gastric emptying while decreasing the amount of food that can be ingested. In contrast, malabsorptive devices, such as the EndoBarrier®, interfere with the small intestine's ability to absorb food while restoring normal gastrointestinal hormone levels regulating satiation. Together, these techniques provide useful alternatives for patients in whom pharmacological or lifestyle modifications have proven ineffective. Despite these advantages, the long-term effects of these procedures on metabolic changes remain to be studied. Furthermore, the management of complications from these procedures continues to evolve. In this review, we aim to elaborate on the clinical indications and efficacy of the endobariatric procedures, together with various types of available endoscopic bariatric therapy procedures.

Endoscopic Management of Post-Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Leakage and Stenosis Using Fully Covered Stent

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed surgery to treat morbid obesity. Post-LSG leak and stenosis are serious complications that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

Objective

The objective was to report the efficacy and safety profile of using specifically designed fully covered self-expandable metallic stent for the treatment of post-LSG complications.

Methods

This retrospective study included adult patients who underwent placement of a fully covered esophagogastric, self-expandable metallic stent for post-LSG leak or stenosis. The procedure was carried out at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between September 2017 and May 2019. Data regarding demographics, indication for stenting, size of the stent, procedural success and poststenting adverse events were collected.

Results

A total of 14 patients met the inclusion criteria, with indication for endoscopic stenting being post-LSG leak in 11 patients and stenosis in 3 patients. The technical success rate of self-expandable metallic stent placement was 100%, and the clinical success was 85.7% (12 of 14 patients). Nausea (71.4%) and vomiting (85.7%) were the most frequent mild adverse events reported. Stent-induced esophageal stricture was the only major adverse event reported in two patients.

Conclusion

Placement of specifically designed self-expandable metallic stent for the treatment of post-LSG leak and stenosis is an effective and safe approach. Further studies with larger cohorts are needed to assess the optimal duration needed to treat such complications.